Practice Session #31
Welcome to my show notes for this week’s session of Practice!
We record these sessions every Sunday. I try to publish the audio on the same day of recording, but once in a while, I may get delayed due to various reasons.
Also, I will usually have the AI-generated transcript and my initial notes published on the same day of recording as well. On Fridays, I’ll go back through and proof the transcript while I add all of my notes.
I’ll be utilizing this opportunity to clarify and elaborate on points that I may not have conveyed as well as I would’ve liked to. I’ll also provide links to further information and resources.
So, on Friday, I’ll intersperse all my notes with the transcription from the audio below (unless I don’t 🤷).
CK: Here we go.
Hey, yo, I’m C K and you’re listening to practice. I’m your functional systems integrator. And this is my podcast where practice is not just the theme of the show, but the whole purpose behind it. What started out as a practice of podcasting, as well as speaking in general, has evolved into a practice of self coaching and self-reflection while it’s pausing have thoughts and providing unsolicited advice as always, I’m fortunate to be joined by my practice partner and partner in life, Pam.
Pam: Hey, that’s me.
CK: Pam is also my pattern awareness manager. And every Sunday we reflect on the past week and my progress with this practice along with other lifestyle practices, as well as theories and ideas behind the virtues of practice itself, we’re doing this on the fly. So don’t hold me responsible for what I say here.
Make sure to check out my show notes where I’ll provide some fact checking, self psychoanalysis and commentary on things I could have done better. You may find this. And more information about this firstname.lastname@example.org slash practice. Today, we’re recording on Sunday, September 27th, 2020. And this is our 31st practice session.
And we’re kind of starting out a little slowly today, ran into some issues with, with outside noise and our annoying neighbors cars. So we’re a little razzled up or I don’t know.
Pam: Just had a little bumpy start.
CK: Yeah. Little annoyances before we got started. But anyway, now that we’re recording, I don’t know. I’m going to talk about
Pam: You got nothing today.
CK: well, I mean, the thing is I.
Like before we started recording, I started thinking about what I wanted to talk about. And then I had all these different ideas and thoughts running through my head. And then I felt like I had a good idea of what I wanted to talk about, but I also didn’t necessarily have anything solidly formed. So it’s all kind of still evolving from last week when we were kind of on our, in our relaxation mode and not thinking so, okay.
I’ve been thinking a lot more and no, I mean, we got out of the relaxation mind this week and got back into the flow and I’ve been doing more. Thinking around philosophy and all the different things that we’ve been talking about over the past couple of weeks. So I guess what I’m trying to say is a lot of these concepts are still abstract in my mind.
And I think I’m just kind of using these sessions, especially the past few weeks to try to wrap. My head around the things that I’m thinking or try to verbalize these thoughts to hopefully generate more connections and whatnot.
Pam: That’s the whole point of talking about philosophy, right?
CK: yeah, exactly. I guess so, so I guess that’s what we’re doing. We’re just doing some Sunday philosophy.
Pam: There you go.
CK: So anyway, let’s just get started with our quote for the week. And actually I’m a little, I’m not certain about which cook that I want to use. So I think so I’m kind of, I mean, this is how frazzled in my mind has been this past week. I’m kind of between two different points. And I think I’m going to go ahead and go with what I think that I want to talk about.
And so this is going to be a little different and it’s not an ancient philosophical quote. Not that Bruce Lee was an ancient philosopher, but this is actually coming from someone that I’ve talked about before I mentioned before his name’s Arthur Kessler. And I had just finished reading his book, the ghost in the machine, which I’ve been reading for the past year, basically.
And I just finished reading it last week. So it’s gotten me thinking a lot. And that book has, is probably the single most influential book for me at this point, because it. Put together so many concepts and ideas that I’ve been already thinking about that I’ve already been thinking about. And these are concepts that I had been developing since childhood even.
And I think a lot of my uncertainties and cognitive dissonance arises from. Concepts like these, where it’s not talked about very much in general society. And so I’ve kind of been battling between these concepts and the general concepts that society has. Just falling into as a routine. So it was exciting for me to begin reading this book over a year ago and to see these concepts put together in words and theories and organized in a book.
And I talked about how much I love books before, and this is, this just goes to exemplify. Like the connection you can get from a book and someone else’s work. And I believe what I read from Kessler afterwards is that this book took like 15 years or so for him to write because all of the concepts are so they’re pretty complex.
I mean, he’s talking about. Complex systems in consciousness and metaphysics and quantum mechanics. So it’s
Pam: Really light stuff.
CK: Yeah. And so, yeah, for me, it was really cool to see all this being put together because as I was saying before, a lot of it is more on the abstract end of the spectrum in my mind, but I have like this notion or kind of intuition that.
There’s something to be derived out of these abstract things. And Kessler just kind of laid it out really well. And it aligned very neatly with what I’ve been thinking. So it was really cool for me and the book opened up a lot. Yeah. And a lot of the things that I’ve been talking you about throughout these practice sessions are based a lot on what I’ve learned through Kessler’s writings.
And so. I’ll go ahead with a quote. Well, actually I think I need to describe, or. Clarify some things first, because the quote talks about whole lines, which we’ve talked about before and to refresh our memories. Hold on, hold on, refer to everything basically as being a part and a whole as at the same time.
So I use humans as an example, humans. In themselves are a hole. So a human is a whole system within themselves, but they’re are also part of a system, whether it’s the social system or the ecological system or the solar system or the universal system, or, you know, there’s all these outside systems around us that influence our own system.
So. Hold on. I just mean that everything is a system and also part of the system and then Kessler’s concepts. And what I’ve been trying to articulate with complex systems are based on a hierarchical level. So he calls it and I believe he calls it an open hierarchical system and it’s open in the sense that there’s no end to the hierarchy.
And we can even translate this to our current reality where we really have no end to the top of the system. We don’t know where the end of the university is. So in that sense, it’s open. So beginning from starting with humans, again, you know, if you move up. Toward the universe. There’s no top to the universe that we know of yet.
And even if there is one and my mind started going to space and astronomy, so, Oh man. Now I just started thinking about dark energy and dark matter in this
Pam: Well, you got me thinking about how they just found, um, basically the basis for life to be on Venus. So
CK: Oh, yeah.
Pam: yeah. So it’s like this idea that even though you think that maybe you can see the entire heart hierarchy, there’s always something else that is possible or something that. Could happen. That is outside of what you see as the hierarchy.
Like it’s not static in that sense. It could always be open-ended
CK: exactly. So in addition to that, in terms of the hierarchical systems, In order, uh, I want to clarify this in terms of what he’s trying to convey. So basically it’s, it has to do with the whole lines and the levels of the hotlines. So starting with humans, again, the hierarchy in terms of the social system, we’ll start with you yourself and then your immediate family.
What could be the next level and then your extended family. It could be the next level from that. And then it could extend out from there, whether it’s your ethnic origin or country, and then extend out obviously to the planet and then extend out to the solar system and then the galaxies and the universe.
So these are like the levels of the hierarchy that he’s talking about. And. Okay, so now I’ll go into the quote. So this is by Arthur Kessler and the quote is hold ons on successively higher levels of the hierarchy show, increasingly complex, more flexible and less predictable patterns of activity. While on successive lower levels, we find increasingly mechanized stereotyped and predictable patterns.
Okay. So there’s a lot of words in here, but taking the example of the social system, well, break down the first part of this, which says lines on successively, higher levels of the hierarchy show, increasingly complex, more flexible and less predictable patterns of activity. So hold on on successively higher levels.
So if we start from the human level, The higher level would be the immediate family and then a higher level than that would be extended family. So as you move up the levels, so as you move up from yourself to let’s say your family system there’s, so the sentence goes on to say the hierarchies show increasingly complex, more flexible and less predictable patterns of activity.
So there’s less, uh, or I’m sorry. So there’s more autonomy as you go higher in level. So actually the social system doesn’t make sense with this.
Pam: Well, yeah, what’s confusing in there to me though, is, um, increased flexibility because you would think that like, that you as an individual would have increased flexibility. Whereas once you get into a higher level of hierarchy, that there would be less flexibility.
CK: Right. So I used the bad example for the systems. So let’s try maybe in terms of, in a system of like authority or something like that. So
Pam: government work, like
CK: yeah, exactly.
Pam: government, state,
CK: Exactly. Exactly. So, I mean, that’s not necessarily a one to one correlation because now I’m like, now I’m thinking politics and
Pam: Alright. Do you have an example?
CK: what do you mean?
Pam: Do you have an example of a good whole on system that works better than.
CK: I mean, let’s take government in its simplest sense where there’s the local government and then there’s the city, government, state, government, federal government. And obviously the federal government oversees the state governments and the state governments overseas, the city governments. And so in that system, the federal government, which is the top of the hierarchy has more flexibility. In terms of their activity
Pam: Because of their autonomy.
CK: right, because of their autonomy. So they’re more autonomous, they have more flexibility and they can, they have the ability to become more complex or initiating more complex policies or practices or whatever you want to say. And then when you moved down. So I actually, government’s a really good example because when you moved down from the federal government to the state government, the state government is under a control of the federal government.
So there’s less autonomy, less flexibility. And of course, as you move down to the city governments, and then yourself, you’re limited to what. Your city, government stipulates and your state government stipulates in the federal government stipulates. So does that make sense now?
Pam: It does. I was thinking of flexibility, not from the sense of autonomy when you pose it with autonomy, it makes sense that they have more flexibility in the decisions that they make because of their power structure. I was thinking of flexibility. As in like, when you have a smaller system, it’s easier to make a decision between two people than it is to make a decision between a hundred people.
So you’re less flexible with like more people in a higher level. So I think just the word flexibility might be a little confusing there.
CK: Yeah. I see what you’re saying, but at the same time that your example, the, uh, interaction between two people and being more flexible, that kind of exemplifies the autonomous nature that you have within your own hierarchy, basically on like a lateral level. So you have autonomy. Within your hierarchy in that sense, but excuse me.
But if you think about the next level of the hierarchy, your autonomy in that, in that scenario of being flexible, laterally is still under some control by the hierarchy above you.
CK: So we’re kind of getting a little complex with this and. More, maybe more complex than we need to, but this is just all to kind of exemplify or try to articulate how we as humans don’t necessarily have as much free will is we may think that we have. And we’re not necessarily in control of as many things or as in control of many things as we think we are. And it’s kind of a cry for more mindfulness on my part, I guess, in terms of. Like, I mean, this is what I’ve been trying to do since I started this podcast or especially the last couple of weeks is, I mean, we’re always talking about mindfulness and consciousness in conscious competence and et cetera, and this is just. Uh, what I’m trying to show here is that there’s levels of control per se, that we have to consider.
So, um, I’m hesitant to get into politics, but it’s such a good example. There’s so much information coming out now, and there’s so many puppeteers pulling on the strings here and there. And we’re so inundated with information and media and social media that we don’t necessarily see the strings being manipulated.
And these strings are being controlled by the systems above us in the hierarchy. And so if we’re not mindful of how we’re being controlled or what we’re being dependent on in the hierarchy above us. Okay. So let me start that sentence over again. If we’re not mindful of how the hierarchy, sorry. If we’re not mindful of how dependent we are on the hierarchy above us, then we’re being controlled without knowing about it. So. That’s kind of the whole point that I’m trying to articulate here is that you need to be mindful in it. We need to be mindful of these hierarchies in this complex system in order to, to move forward. And sir, ourselves, rather than thinking, we’re a sort of inserting ourselves when we’re actually asserting the concepts or ideas from the hierarchy above us.
That’s. Sending it down the stream into our consciousness. Does that make sense?
Pam: it does. Um, I don’t want to get. As you said too political about it, but the word that’s coming to mind is manipulation because the hierarchy can be used for good, which it is in a lot of cases, but power can also be used for manipulating people to do what you want them to do. And while obviously we don’t want anyone to manipulate other people for bad reasons.
Um, It’s going to happen and it’s on you to be aware of your position in the hierarchy and how those in higher levels are using their position and their influence to control what you know or are told and how that influences the decisions that you’re making that feed back into the system.
CK: Right. Yeah, well done there. It’s it’s very complex. And when you start thinking about this kind of stuff, it gets pretty meta and you start. Thinking about all the different ways that things cross over into each other. And that’s the thing like these days, a lot of things gimme is very binary and it’s either this or that, or yes or no, or black or white, but there’s a lot of maybes and grays.
And we talk about spectral potentiality all the time and it things in reality are not binary. It’s on a continual spectrum. And we, as humans put boundaries on things and categorize things, and it makes things easier for us because if we didn’t do this, then we’d have to figure out every little thing.
Every time we couldn’t function as humans, because we wouldn’t know what to do, we, everything we encountered would be new and we’d have to figure it out all the time. So while it’s beneficial to categorize and. Put boundaries on things. We have to realize that that’s just that, like, it does put constraints on what actually is there and this kind of elaborates on what we were talking about last week with language and the word love specifically where we put words to these concepts and feelings like love.
But it’s like, love is very limiting and we bound it, you know, with that word and categorize it as love. But it’s, you know, how do you, how do you explain love? It’s like a spectrum and it’s a feeling and it’s abstract.
Pam: it’s different for everyone.
CK: exactly exactly. So we have to remain mindful of how things are connected and continual and spectral rather than this cycle of binary thought that we’re constantly just routinely
Pam: Well, we’re, we’re stuck in it because it’s, it’s almost easier in the sense to just say a or B, but, um, To kind of tie this back to the idea that you were talking about at the beginning, with like that there is no limit to the hierarchy that there’s, there’s no, no bounds. Um, your, your knowledge and your view and what you understand.
Like, if we’re talking about whether things are binary or, or not knowledge, you can only make decisions based on what you know, and you only know a little bit. So like the idea that you can say something is a, or B from the limited amount of knowledge that you have is absurd.
CK: Yeah. Yeah. When you put it that way. Yeah. Great point. So I’m actually not sure where we are on time, because we left the recording going in the beginning because of the outside
Pam: 20 minutes and.
CK: Okay, cool. So let’s keep going on this. And I’ve been on this thought cycle of how do I put this? I mean, I’ve been going on about emotion versus reason a lot lately.
And separating thought from feeling and incorporating the headless way into my thought processes. And in doing that, I’ve, I’m still experiencing a ton of synchronicity. And I think what’s happening is that I’m starting to find my creative self again, or kind of re. Discover it and what I’m finding out, which is just crazy to me is that it’s all falling in with everything else that I’ve been rediscovering or kind of falling into.
And so, uh, so, okay. It’s actually, uh, continuing on about Arthur Kessler. I started, so I finished ghost in the machine and I started the. Book that was previous to ghost in the machine, which is called the act of creation. And that kind of sounds religious or something, but it’s actually creation in terms of creativity and. It’s really interesting to me, just the way that I’ve fell into these books this way. Cause I don’t remember exactly how I found out about ghost in the machine, but I’m sure I was looking into metaphysics and metacognition and consciousness and all that stuff. And I didn’t really know about his other books, but after reading the ghost in the machine, He’s mentioned the art, the act of creation a lot throughout that book.
And so I started getting interested in it. And so I started reading that this week and he starts going into how creation or creativity falls in line with his notion of the whole lines and open hierarchic systems. And. What I’m finding a lot of, oops, sorry. Knocked my microphone there. What I’m finding a lot of coherence with is how creativity is very much in line with emotion.
Whereas objectivity, obviously isn’t in line with reason. And I been, when I was a kid, I was super creative and I was very artistic and I was very musical and I’ve carried on with my musicality through high school and college where I picked up the guitar and played in band and I’ve been messing around with music and finally started getting back into it.
A lot, uh, this past year or the past few months. And I’m kind of seeing how this correlates with yes. The four stages of the headless way where the process of becoming, or going through the process of the child too, or I’m sorry, the baby to the child, to the adult, to the seer where the child is. Very much about themselves and really don’t see themselves.
They just see what’s on front of them. So the child has no head in our, I’m sorry, that’s the baby. Sorry. I’m totally getting these
Pam: ahead of yourself.
CK: Yeah. So the baby has no head and just sees the world and the child begins to understand that they are a self. And, but, but they’re not so tied up with that.
They’re still very much about. What’s out there and frame much, not a self absorbed. And then you become the adult, which is very much more conscious of themselves and see themselves in the mirror and see themselves. How other people see them. And then the year is where you take all this and reinstitute the concept of the baby, where you have the notion of yourself, as well as having no head.
So it’s yourself and having no self. Basically, I kind of went through that real quick, but hopefully that still makes sense after talking about it past the past few weeks. But anyway, in terms of creativity, And creativity having to do with yourself. It’s creativity is yourself searching. You’re asserting your own creations in your own head out into the world.
And I guess you could assert it to yourself as well. But creativity is not rooted in reason. It’s not rooted in objectivity. It’s very much more subjective and emotional and feeling based and taking that into consideration. I’m seeing how I’ve kind of lost, well, maybe not lost, but kind of restrained or stuffed that creativity down through like my twenties and thirties. Because I was so much in the adult state of the headless way. And I was seeing myself as everybody else was seeing me or how I thought everybody else was seeing me. And so now it’s, it’s just crazy to me that I’m getting back into music and I’m feeling this creativity and I’m. Considering these concepts of emotion versus reason and creativity versus objectivity.
And now I’m starting this book, the act of creation, which is the prequel to the book, which is the most formative writing that I’ve read in a long time, if not ever. And so, I don’t know, I’m just kinda rambling on here about how I’m. Rediscovering my creative self. And as I was saying before, I’m trying to assert myself more into the super system because I’ve been so inundated with my thoughts and how I want to fit in the super system for so long throughout my life.
So it’s just, it’s just cool to, to experience all the synchronicity and it feels really good too. I mean, I don’t know, maybe I’m rationalizing things and connecting things for my own benefit. Somehow. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it just feels really good to, to know that like I’m going in the right direction.
Like all these things are falling into place and it. Doesn’t feel like I’m putting a lot of effort into it. It’s just happening. So yeah, I’m kind of rambled on a lot there. Do you have any response to that?
Pam: Um, I’ve got, I have two completely different directions. Um, uh, so when you’re talking about the headless way there and how you’re now able to move out of that phase, where you’re so focused on how other people see you, are you saying that you. We’re less inclined to create for those years, because you were afraid of how people would see your creations or hear your music or afraid of judgment.
CK: I’m not sure. Like I, well, for sure there was some of that, but when I think about it, I don’t know if that was like the reason. Um, yeah, I’m not sure. It’s like, it’s not necessarily one thing. It’s just kind of an overall systemic mental attitude or something.
Pam: Or maybe that you were doing what you thought, right. He expected you to do rather than being a creative person. Is
CK: right. Yeah, totally. Totally. Yeah. Um, and it’s, it’s not like I, I fall into that mode of thinking consciously it’s just, huh. Wow. How things fell into place, I guess. And, uh, you know, I D I got really interested in science and logic and I mean, objectivity, so maybe there’s a factor of that in play.
Pam: like you thought that they were in opposition.
CK: Yeah. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know what I thought I got it. You know, it’s all abstract, but yeah. It’s uh, yeah. Uh, I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know how to explain it.
Pam: Well, I’ll give you, um, funny observations from your astrological chart,
Pam: is that your fifth house, which is the house of creation, which is creativity. So it can be associated with children, but it’s really anything that you bring to life, which includes art and creation. That house for you is ruled by.
Um, Pisces, which is a water sign, which is very about emotions. So it’s um, so the kind of the message there is that your creation is going to involve tapping into emotions and being in an emotional state. And along with that today, mercury, which is the planet of. Um, gathering and sharing information and thinking moved into Scorpio, which is your rising sign, your ascendance sign.
So it is conjunct with your ascendant right now. And they’re, uh, they’re in Scorpio, which is another water sign, which is deep emotions. So it’s like the dark deep water that, um, kind of like plunging the depths of maybe emotions or topics that people don’t want to talk about. So it’s interesting that you’re getting into this emotional stuff in our conversation today about your creativity.
CK: Yeah. That astrology stuff is so crazy. I’m still not sure how I feel about it, but yeah, that actually. It brings up some things now, because I feel like a lot of my creativity in my adult years or creativity per se, was very calculated and methodical. And I’m very strategic in the things that I do.
And I was actually talking to our friend Selena about this a couple of weeks ago, in terms of, well, we were talking about how. We get in our creative modes or, you know, how we balance our creativity with our logic and whatnot, because we’re, we’re me and Selena were very similar or Selena and I, or me.
Yeah. It’s leaning in and out. And so. It’s interesting what you’re saying, because it feels like now I’m trying to tap into the emotional side of my creativity. Whereas before I was still creative in a lot of ways, But it was all very calculated and Selena mentioned the same thing. Like she was very much the same way.
And Selena does a lot of creative work in like acting in producing and writing and stuff like that. And she feels like she’s very methodical and calculated in her creativity. Whereas when I see other men, my voice, so when I see other creatives. Like well, so there’s, there are experimental creatives in conceptual creatives, which I think I’ve mentioned before, where I’m very much more experimental where I just keep chipping away at things and keep experimenting with things.
And this is pretty much in line with how a man, who was it. Hmm, Cezanne, the artist stays on painted. He painted the same thing over and over and over again. So he has a lot of very similar paintings. Whereas someone like, uh, who would be a conceptual, creative, someone like Picasso, who just comes up with the concept in his mind and just paints it.
Oh, you know, just lays it down right there and his work is done. And so I was kind of trying to find how to become more conceptual in that sense, because I’m so strategic and methodical, but now I feel like music’s kind of bringing me into that more of the emotional realm and yeah, I feel like there’s a lot of like music.
Like the audio and the sounds there’s it, to me, it feels like some kind of like a, like a portal into this dimension of creativity and, um, like emotion. So I, yeah, I have a lot of thoughts going around on this and maybe I can. Expand upon it next week, or sometime later, because there’s a I’m seeing, and this is very abstract, but I’m seeing something going on with how I’ve been able to decouple my vision from my site.
Does that even make sense to you?
Pam: you’re going to need to explain that out a little bit more.
CK: Yeah. So with the headless way and seeing things as having no head. In meditating in this manner, I’ve been able to decouple my vision from my site so I can look at something and kind of de focus. And what I see is just colors and light versus objects. So. So, so site, so site is our sense.
So site is how our site is what our eyes see our eyes taking sight, but vision is computed per se by our brain. So our brain calculates and basically categorizes and puts boundaries on. The information that it takes in from our eyes.
Pam: It looks for patterns and puts it together into
CK: Exactly. And this is the same concept as what I was talking about with words and language, how we put, sorry, patterns and constraints and boundaries to concepts and feelings and put them into these words.
So our eyes will do the same thing with what are we seeing? And so that’s why we might see something. And when we take a second look, it’s not actually what we thought we saw in the first place. You know what we thought we saw our brain put that together, but then when we actually look at it, you know, it might be something different.
And so, you know, your, your vision, isn’t always what you see. Okay. So I’ve been able to kind of decouple that, so that. What I see isn’t computed. It’s just light. It’s just light in colors. So I don’t really see anything. It’s just kind of all a blur. Yeah. No, when I’m meditating.
Pam: You didn’t say
CK: Oh, sorry.
Pam: I was really confused.
CK: Sorry. Okay. Yeah, that might make more sense. No, but yeah, it’s what I’m meditating on this specific concept. And also when I’m trying to bring this up throughout the day, if I need to use it for whatever reason. And so I, I I’m beginning to get this same feeling with hearing and sound. And I’m beginning to the couple.
Is it decouple sound from hearing? Yeah. So sound is what your ears taking in hearing is how your brain computes it.
Pam: I guess.
CK: Yeah. I’m not sure if that’s the right terminology, but I’m much less annoyed. With outside noises and stuff these days after developing this notion and no, like I, and now this gets into abstract part in stuff that I am trying to wrap my head around, but, um, Kind of playing.
I got this synthesizer last week that I’ve been playing and it’s been keeping me up at night because I just totally fall into manipulating these wave forms and it, and this is kind of putting all these concepts together for me. And it’s just so fun. And I just zone out on manipulating these waves and I could.
I get to see the wave forms on the synthesizer. It has a screen and it’s putting, so it puts together quantum physics for me and audio and the notion of trying to separate sound from hearing and all these different things. And I think it’s all kind of there’s interconnection between that and what I’m experiencing with division.
So, yeah, there’s a lot going on. And a lot of them trying to wrap my head around. So, yeah, so that’s, that’s that, and I think I’ve, I’ve been, uh, I’ve been abstract enough throughout this session, so we could probably end it there.
Pam: Yes. Dear listeners. I live with this weirdo. I get to experience this all day every day.
CK: Yeah. And I, it feels like we went on quite awhile. Yeah. So let’s leave it there for this week and start closing it up. So Pam, where can people find you?
Pam: You can find me on Twitter, where I am at Pamela underscore Lund.
CK: And you might be able to find me on Twitter at C K disco and. Uh, I’m not going to say anything more about that yet, so we’ll leave it there. I, so picking up this synthesizer and all the music stuff I’m doing, um, I’ve been. I’ve been conceptualizing a lot of stuff to do on social media. So we’ll see what happens with that.
I’m not going to add any more pressure on myself just yet, so we’ll leave it there for now. And so thank you to the listeners for joining us this week and as always thank you to PIM for joining me. And I hope you come back next week and keep on practicing to Lou.